Urban land consolidation

Justices: Endresen, Møse, Bull, Arntzen, Bergh

In a case on urban land consolidation under section 2 subsection 1 j), cf. section 28 subsection 4 of the 1979 Land Consolidation Act – provisions continued in section 3-30 cf. section 3-31 of the 2013 Land Consolidation Act – the Supreme Court held that former regulation plans do no dictate what is to be considered foreseeable use when establishing the characteristics of the affected properties for development purposes. However, it cannot be ruled out that such plans may be significant. In the individual assessment, the court of appeal had assumed that an existing road and a recreation area belonging to the municipality, would most likely have been kept if the plan area had been developed, and was therefore unsuited for development purposes. These areas were thus not allocated any share of the net value increase. The Supreme Court supported the court of appeal's application of the law. With regard to two other land owners, the court of appeal had found that they could continue their business without tearing down any buildings, and that they therefore did not incur any loss. The Supreme Court stated that, here, one had not considered the fact that the these land owners had to pay shares of common costs in the plan area, and that one of them had to pay a difference in connection with a new design of the lots. Although these as a starting point were investments in the development of the area, they became in fact a cost as long as the landowners refused to participate in the development, but wanted instead to continue their business from the existing buildings. The conditions in section 3 b) of the 1979 Land Consolidation Act that each property was to have its share of the value increase, was thus not met. The court of appeal's land consolidation ruling was set aside.